How Caucasoids Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank

Transcription

1 Current Anthropology Volume 42, Number 1, February by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved /2001/ $2.50 How Caucasoids Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank From Morton to Rushton by Leonard Lieberman In the 19th century measurements of cranial capacity by Morton and others supported a Caucasoid 1 Mongoloid 1 Negroid hierarchy of intelligence. This continued through most of the 20th century but was challenged by a nonhierarchical view originating with Boas. Beginning in the 1980s Rushton correlated cranial and IQ measurements and presented a hierarchy with Mongoloids at the top. Each of these periods relates to its social context: the 19th-century hierarchy paralleled the height of European world domination; the nonhierarchy of the 20th century reflected world wars, worldwide depression, and the breakup of empires; the Mongoloid 1 Caucasoid 1 Negroid hierarchy followed the economic success of several Asian nations. Morton s cranial ranking was the result of his sampling error and his acceptance of the hierarchical thinking of his time. But how is it possible for Rushton to support the M 1 C 1 N ordering while using the data of several anthropologists who have rejected racial hierarchies on empirical grounds? The answer to this question involves a critique of Rushton s use of the race concept, his aggregation of diverse populations into three traditional races, his claim to explain differences in cultural achievements on the basis of variation in brain size, and a number of other problems. The study concludes by noting that the major consequence of these hierarchies is the apparent justification for the exploitation of those at the bottom. leonard lieberman is Professor of Anthropology at Central Michigan University (Mount Pleasant, Mich, 48859, U.S.A.). Born in 1925, he was educated at the University of California, Berkeley (B.A., 1956; M.A., 1959) and at Michigan State University (Ph.D., 1970). He has published The Debate over Race (Phylon 39:127 41); with Alice Littlefield and Larry T. Reynolds, Redefining Race: The Potential Demise of a Concept in Physical Anthropology (current anthropology 23:641 55): and, with Larry T. Reynolds, Race: The Deconstruction of a Scientific Concept, in Race and Other Misadventures: Essays in Honor of Ashley Montagu in His Ninetieth Year (Dix Hills, N.J.: General Hall, 1996). The present paper was accepted for publication 26 v 00. The first thing that brought me to my senses in all this racial discussion was the continuous change in the proofs and arguments advanced.... I was skeptical about brain weight; surely much depended upon what brains were weighed. [W. E. B. DuBois 1943, cited by Visweswaran 1998:76] First we must admire the apparent cranial expansion of Asians over the last half-century, when [earlier] researchers consistently reported their having smaller brains than whites. Obviously this implies the possibility of a comparable expansion in blacks. More likely, it implies the possibility of scientists finding just what they expect when the social and political stakes are high. [Marks 1995:271] As the 20th century reached its end, a paradox emerged in which, while most anthropologists had come to reject concepts of biological races and racism (Lieberman and Kirk n.d., Lieberman, Stevenson, and Reynolds 1989), a number of psychologists persisted in the race idea and the scientific racism that had prevailed in the 19th and much of the 20th century (Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Lynn 1977a, b; Rushton 1988b). Of course scientific and popular racism has not been confined to psychologists. It was part of a widespread worldview that informed researchers including Samuel George Morton ( ), considered by some to be one of the founders of American physical anthropology. Morton collected human skulls, measured their cranial vaults, and concluded that Caucasoids had the largest brains and Negroids the smallest, with Mongoloids in between (Morton 1849). A century and a half later this hierarchy would be altered by J. Philippe Rushton and colleagues, placing the Mongoloids in the alpha position, Caucasoids next, and Negroids last. Rushton went on to correlate brain size with IQ scores, claim a Mongoloid 1 Caucasoid 1 Negroid correlation, and use variation in IQ scores to explain everything from civilization to barbarism (1997a). Although this view has been invalidated by a century of anthropological research and theorizing stimulated by Franz Boas (Gossett 1965, Cravens 1978), Rushton (1996) dismisses this work as no more than political correctness. This paper asks, first, why the century-old hierarchical tradition has been reversed, and to answer this question it examines the societal context, the related ideology, and the methodological practices that constitute science in short, the social construction of scientific knowledge (Mannheim 1961, Gould 1996). The second question asks how it is possible to support 19th-century racism citing late-20th-century anthropological research that is opposed to the notion of race, and the answer to it will involve a critique of (1) Rushton s use of race despite decades of findings that invalidate it (Lieberman and Reynolds 1996), (2) his use of aggregation, (3) the inconsistency of his cranioracial variation with evolutionary anthropology, (4) the fact that his collection of brain measurements fails to utilize control variables 69

3 lieberman From Morton to Rushton F 71 Caucasoids. ) Gould (1999), using Tiedemann s numbers, has calculated the means and found a Caucasoid 1 Mongoloid 1 Negroid hierarchy but considered the differences tiny and probably of no significance in the judgment of intelligence (p. 69). It was Samuel G. Morton who established the hierarchical order that many others followed during the 19th century and into the 20th. Morton, a Philadelphia physician, painstakingly collected and measured the capacity of human skulls from around the world and produced the numbers that he believed certified that races varied in the mean volume of their crania and could be ranked on that basis. 1 He shared in the prevailing outlook that some races were superior and that the greatest among these was the Caucasoid, followed by the Mongoloid and then the Negroid. He made significant contributions to the sciences of his day (Brace n.d.) and did not present his findings in an overtly political form, but he thought that races, being unchanging, were possibly species (Wolpoff and Caspari 1997:89). His numbers indicated that Caucasians had a mean brain size of 87 cubic inches, while Mongolians measured 82, American Indians 82, and Ethiopians 78 (Gould 1981:54). Stephen J. Gould (1981) explains the methodological errors that produced this order. Morton admitted only three Hindu skulls to his Caucasian sample because he considered the skulls of these people probably smaller than those of any other existing nation (Morton 1839:261). His sample of American Indians was biased by overrepresentation of smaller Inca/Peruvian crania and the inclusion of only three large-brained Iroquois skulls. For some populations, such as American Indians, more of the crania were female, making for lower average means, while for Caucasians more male skulls made for larger mean cranial measurements. Gould comments (p. 60) that Morton was probably unaware of his error, since he explicitly described his samples. Morton s procedures and conclusions, however erroneous, had broad impact, becoming the allegedly scientific foundation for the idea that races were unequal. In The Inequality of Human Races (1966[1854]:111), Arthur de Gobineau presented a summary of Morton s measurements to support his view that Nordics were superior to all other races, having created high civilizations (Molnar 1992:258). J. C. Nott and George Gliddon included Morton s data in their Types of Mankind (1854:454). Gliddon was an amateur Egyptologist who used Morton s method to support the claim that the pharaohs were Caucasoids, the only race then thought to have been capable of high civilization (Molnar 1992: 16). Nott and Gliddon also applied Morton s scheme to the American South, hoping to justify slavery (Brace 1997:865). Morton, Nott, and Gliddon came to be regarded as the nucleus of the American school of anthro- 1. The internal capacity of each skull was measured by first sealing internal openings with cotton and then filling the cavity with mustard seed. However, the seed packed down too much, so Morton switched to 1/8-inch-diameter lead shot, thereby achieving greater consistency on remeasurement (Gould 1981). pology, noted for the idea that races had separate origins (Erickson 1997:65). It should be noted, however, that Southerners did not accept this polygenic view because it clashed with their biblical belief in the creation of Adam and Eve. Popular and academic thought reinforced each other (Baker 1998). Much research on cranial size ignored Mongoloids and concentrated on whites and Negroes (Bean 1906). Although slavery was in the past, Jim Crow segregation provided a context in which the exploited status of Negroes still needed justification (Baker 1998). Part of that justification came from scientists in the form of the racial hierarchy just described. The uniform support for this hierarchy coincided with the dominance of Europe and its colonial offshoots over most of the world s darker-skinned people. For Morton and most other writers of the early 19th century, the assumed racial hierarchy was part of the divine order. From the 1830s on the expansion of the power of the United States was considered an expression of manifest destiny. In the second half of the century evolutionary ideas emerged, and the differences between races and their cultures began to be seen as stages of progressive evolution. Anthropology emerged in the 19th century as the study of evolution from primitive barbarism to advanced civilization. It was a point of view that assumed the superiority of Europe and the Caucasoid race. This paradigm of linked biological and cultural evolution supported the hierarchical ordering of the races. 20th-century hierarchies In the 20th century, although the anthropologist Roland Dixon (1923) and others maintained the traditional Caucasoid 1 Mongoloid 1 Negroid hierarchy, it began to be reported that Mongoloids had larger brains or that Mongoloids and Caucasoids had the same brain size. Bushmakin (1982:224) reported that the Buriats, of the Mongol race, had mean brain weights of 1,508 g for males and 1,439 g for women, heavier than most Europeans. Similarly, Boas (1938:115) reported, without asserting their superiority, that Eskimos had the largest brains. Kroeber reported the mean cranial capacity of European males as equal to that of the Chinese (1948: 123); he was one of the prominent anthropologists, mostly students of Franz Boas, who rejected racial hierarchies (Smedley 1993:294). In 1923 he wrote that it is a difficult task to establish any race as either superior or inferior to another, but relatively easy to prove that we entertain a strong prejudice in favor of our own racial superiority (p. 85). After World War II interest in the study of races as biological units continued for a time, but racial hierarchies in anthropology became rare. Whereas the Caucasian -dominated hierarchical view of the 19th century mirrored the extraordinary and triumphal territorial expansion of Europe and the United States, the diversity of hierarchies of the 20th century reflected many challenges to Caucasoid domination. Colonial expansion had ended, and a fruitless world war had been followed by the worldwide depression of the

4 72 F current anthropology Volume 42, Number 1, February s and a second world war in which Nazi Germany s genocide had made racism and racial hierarchies unacceptable. The independence movement in European colonies in India and Africa meant the end of one of the social structures that supported the 19th-century racial hierarchies. Among the triumphs of the 20th century was the victory in World War II and the enormous postwar prosperity centered in the United States, but it was followed by the unpopular war in Viet Nam in the 1960s (Kennedy 1999). Ideas of the inheritance of behavior were challenged in the battle between biological and cultural explanations led by Franz Boas and his students (Cravens 1978, Gossett 1965). Boas chipped away at traditional hierarchical thinking by distinguishing race from culture and language and by proving that racial hierarchies were scientifically untenable (Baker 1998:100). His insistence on thorough ethnographies without ethnocentrism laid the foundations for rejecting an evolutionary explanation of cultural differences in favor of the concept of culture. Many of his students were second-generation immigrants, women, Negroes, or Jews who may have been reacting to the destructive impact of the racism and sexism they had experienced (see Lieberman 1997). The diversity of hierarchical views and the rise of the Boasian view are linked with changes in psychology, sociology, and genetics beginning around 1930, reaction against the racism of Nazi Germany in the late 1930s and 1940s (Benedict and Weltfish 1943), and the development of empirical studies (Klineberg 1935) challenging the use of IQ scores to demonstrate racial superiority. Committees of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization issued four Statements on Race between 1950 and 1967, all of which took a nonhierarchical position (see Montagu 1972). The nonhierarchical view was expressed at the end of the century by an executive committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists: The human features which have universal biological value for the survival of the species are not known to occur more frequently in one population than in any other. Therefore it is meaningless from a biological point of view to attribute a general inferiority or superiority to this or to that race (1996: 570). A similar statement was prepared by the American Anthropological Association in During the second half of the 20th century most scientists in all disciplines had rejected racism and any hierarchy of races, although many biologists and psychologists still supported the idea of race (Lieberman and Reynolds 1996). new hierarchy, old racism Late in the 20th century, surprisingly, some psychologists began to report that Mongoloids outranked Caucasoids. Richard Lynn (1977a, b) stressed the higher intelligence of the Chinese and placed Mongoloids first, with mean IQ scores of , Caucasoids next at 100, and Negroid-Caucasoids in the United States 85 and in Africa about 70 (1982). The publication of these theories of East Asian superiority was preceded by Japan s becoming a world-class economic power (Sautman 1995:201). Japan s World War II defeat and the subsequent economic depression were followed by its growing economic achievement in the 1970s and the appearance of the explanation that this achievement was due to higher intelligence (see Lynn 1977a, b; Lynn and Jendal 1993). In order to support a hierarchy of three races, the race at the top must be the most intelligent and successful. Lynn stated that the high level of Japanese intelligence has played a significant role in the brilliant successes of Japanese industrialists (1977a: 465). The shrinking of Caucasoid brains and cranial size and the rise of Mongoloids in the papers of J. Philippe Rushton began in the 1980s. Genes do not change as fast as the stock market, but the idea of Caucasian superiority seemed contradicted by emerging industrialization and capital growth in Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Korea (Sautman 1995). Reversing the order of the first two races was not a strategic loss to raciocranial hereditarianism, since the major function of racial hierarchies is justifying the misery and lesser rights and opportunities of those at the bottom. The use of IQ tests to justify the lowest position for African-Americans has occurred repeatedly over time (Gould 1996). After World War I, the very low test results of U.S. Army recruits were said to reveal a median mental age of 13, and Negroes and immigrants were said to have the lowest IQs. In 1969, Arthur Jensen proclaimed the fixity of IQ and the futility of remedial programs. In 1994, The Bell Curve (Herrnstein and Murray 1994) asserted that blacks had IQs 12 points lower than those of whites and asked whether their low intelligence might be responsible for most of the social problems in the United States. All these publications suggested that the situation of African-Americans was largely the result of heredity and therefore social programs could not improve it or could do so only at great cost. Gould (1996) links Jensen s paper and The Bell Curve: These two most recent episodes also correlate with political swings (p. 29) just as did the controversy over the results of IQ testing of soldiers in World War I. He views all of these instances as resurgences of biological determinism [that] correlate with periods of political retrenchment and destruction of social generosity (p. 28). These psychologists whose work has seemed to some readers to validate the racial hierarchy (R. Travis Osborne, Clyde E. Noble, Arthur R. Jensen, Audrey M. Shuey, Richard Lynn, Linda Gottfredson, and Richard J. Herrnstein) have relied primarily on IQ tests, but Rushton has merged this tradition with the abandoned anthropological racial hierarchy based on cranial measurements. He began publishing on this topic in 1988 and by 1996 had written approximately 50 articles on it, as well as a book on sociobiological altruism (1980) and another entitled Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1997a). In 1989 he had achieved instant notoriety upon delivering a paper presenting his views at the conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and ever since his papers have had wide distribu-

5 lieberman From Morton to Rushton F 73 tion and have been the focus of protests by antiracist activists. Late in 1999 a condensed version of his 1997 book was published in a small pocketbook edition (108 pages without bibliography but included an order form for the unabridged version). The first chapter is entitled Yali s Question and Marco s Answer, and the question (asked of Jared Diamond by a political leader in New Guinea) is Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own? (Diamond 1997:13). Diamond provides a multidimensional book-length answer to this question, but Rushton is pleased to quote (without citing his source) Marco Polo: Surely there is no more intelligent race on earth than the Chinese (1999a: 14). The condensation was mailed unsolicited to numerous members of the American Anthropological Association (AAA), the American Sociological Association (ASA), and the American Psychological Association. The title page was preceded by quotations endorsing the 1995 edition of the book from Charles Murray, Henry Harpending, Arthur Jensen, Thomas Bouchard, Linda Gottfredsen, Hans J. Eysenck, and Richard Lynn. Lynn was quoted as saying that Rushton should, if there is any justice, receive a Nobel Prize and Harpending as calling Rushton s Race, Evolution, and Behavior an attempt to understand differences in terms of life-history evolution.... for now Rushton s framework is essentially the only game in town. Members of the AAA protested to the association s headquarters, and representatives of both the AAA and the ASA clarified that they had made their mailing lists available to the publisher for advertising purposes and the mailing did not constitute AAA endorsement of Rushton s message. the concern of anthropology Almost all the criticism of Rushton s work has appeared in psychological journals (see esp. Cernovsky 1990, Gabor and Robert 1990, Weizmann et al. 1989, Zuckerman and Brody 1988). Cernovsky (1992:56) lists 14 of Rushton s errors and summarizes them as follows: Rushton resorts to substandard data, ignores disconfirmatory evidence, ignores high intragroup variance effects of restricted range on the size of correlation coefficients, and overinterprets low r s (p. 56). Frequently Rushton s writing follows the pattern of The Bell Curve (Herrnstein and Murray 1994), in which a qualification precedes a statement justifying the inferiority of those at the bottom: On any single dimension to be discussed the racial differences are not large. Typically they range from 4 to 34 percentile points. Although often modest, the mean differences do exist, and they do so in a stubborn and consistent pattern (Rushton 1997a:xv). Rushton goes on to caution against generalizing from a group average to any particular individual, but he does imply that it is appropriate to generalize from aggregated population measurements to the constituent populations. I regard Rushton s style of writing as one affirming black racial inferiority while seeking the deniability of racism (see Lieberman 1995). Most anthropological sources have been silent about Rushton s ideas, with the exception of two articles (Groves 1991, Weizmann et al. 1990) in a collection (Sussman 1999) and one brief but thorough anthropological critique (Marks 1995:271 73). Anthropologists, especially physical or biological anthropologists, should be more concerned. First, they declare themselves to be studying human biological variation (Lieberman 1968) and have debated the nature of race and the taxonomy of races. Certainly the oldest research question in physical anthropology is the one that inquires about the number of fundamental subdivisions of the human species, and the relationships among them (Marks 1997:52). Second, Rushton draws on the theory of evolution, which is central to physical anthropological concerns. Third, members of the discipline have contributed support to hierarchical beliefs in the past and therefore should shoulder responsibility for challenging similar efforts today (Konner 1982:439), especially since several prominent physical anthropologists are inappropriately cited. Fourth, physical anthropologists (e.g., Tobias 1970) have developed techniques for evaluating research on brain size. Fifth, physical anthropologists should be equipped to bring to this issue knowledge from linguistics, archaeology, and cultural anthropology. The concern of cultural anthropologists, consistent with their opposition to both hierarchical ranking of cultures and the race concept, should be with demonstrating Rushton s errors (Baker 1998, Mukhopadhyay and Moses 1997, Shanklin 1994, Smedley 1993). Both cultural and biological anthropology have increasingly critiqued the race concept (Lieberman, Stevenson, and Reynolds 1989), and many of the introductory textbooks of both disciplines have given critical attention to the issue of race and IQ (Lieberman and Kirk 1997). To the critique of the revised cranioracial-iq determinism cultural anthropologists can bring several contributions, among them the critique of IQ tests that claim to be culture-free or culture-fair, the rich comparative ethnographic record of people classified in one race but having very different cultures and languages, the record of colonial contact resulting in exploitation that minimizes the colonized s access to education and/or belittles their traditional culture, and the evidence of migration and interbreeding and the social process of the formation of racial identities, which tells us more about race than a mountain of cranial measurements (Moore 1994, Omi and Winant 1986). In the sibling discipline of sociology little has been said about Rushton s work, but sociologists have reanalyzed the data in The Bell Curve and demonstrated its fundamental errors (see Fischer et al. 1996). To respond to Rushton is to give his views a wider platform, but not to respond implies approval. I intend to demonstrate that his methods are seriously flawed and his conclusions invalid. So in fact are Morton s, although it should be noted that there are important differences between the two. Morton carried out original research

6 74 F current anthropology Volume 42, Number 1, February 2001 from the mid-1820s to 1851 in geology, paleontology, and zoology displaying state of the art scholarship (Brace n.d.). His cranial measurements illustrate his empirical emphasis, and he describes his procedure in detail. In contrast, Rushton seldom carries out direct measurements and does not adequately explain his selective use of the research and writing of others. Further, Morton s work on race was done in a cultural context in which racial hierarchy was the prevailing conception. Morton pioneered in measuring populations in a pre-darwinian era, writing before the culture concept provided a tool for separating learned and inherited traits. Rushton lives in a period in which there is wide awareness of biological reductionism and the idea of culture but nonetheless reverts to discredited racial hierarchies, aggregating all the available population data that he thinks fit into each of the three traditional races. Whereas with Morton it is always possible to tell which population is being used, Rushton has created what Montagu (1997) calls an omlette of populations representing nothing that exists in nature. I am not taking the extreme deconstructionist view that scientific knowledge about socially sensitive subjects changes with changing social and cultural conditions and therefore can allow us only very limited glimpses into the realities of nature. Rather, I believe that knowledge can represent nature with increasingly greater accuracy when we are aware of our methodological errors, our accumulated knowledge, and the influence of our social and historical context. Abusing Anthropological Research How is it possible that 19th- and early 20th-century scientific racism can be presented as science while drawing upon late-20th-century anthropological and other research that critiques race and racism? Rushton describes his data as follows (1997a:xiii): Over the last several years I have reviewed the international literature on race differences, gathered novel data and found a distinct pattern. On more than 60 variables, people of east Asian ancestry (Mongoloids, Orientals) and people of African ancestry (Negroids, blacks) define opposite ends of the spectrum, with people of European ancestry (Caucasoids, whites) falling intermediately, and with much variability within each broad grouping.... This racial matrix emerges with measures of brain size, intelligence, reproductive behavior, sex hormones, twinning rate, speed of physical maturation, personality, family stability, law-abidingness, and social organization. Rushton paints the aggregated races with a very broad brush, using concepts central to anthropological concerns. His model can be described in terms of a causal chain. Climate variations select for a hierarchy of differences among the three races with Mongoloids being superior, Caucasoids a close second, and Negroids with the smallest brains, the largest genitalia, the lowest intelligence, the largest number of offspring, and the least parental care. These differences, especially hereditary intelligence, are said to explain variations in culture among human societies in such a way that Africans are always inferior. I will first examine Rushton s use of the race concept and go on to point to a number of other problems with his work. In the sections that follow we will see that Rushton cites anthropologists including Beals, Montagu, Tobias, and others, taking their data out of context and using them in a manner contrary to the conclusions these authors reached and without informing his readers of this crucial omission. By this procedure Rushton supports his model but ignores contrary and alternative explanations that invalidate that model. 1. Rushton uses race despite decades of findings that invalidate it. Rushton s definition of race emphasizes that races are natural hereditary biological units and assumes that it is possible to aggregate populations and calculate a mean score to represent this conglomerate: A variety, a subspecies... characterized by a more or less distinctive combination of physical traits transmitted in descent. A genetically distinct inbreeding division within a species... distinguished on the basis of skeletal morphology, hair and facial features, and molecular genetic information (1997a:305, emphasis added). There is an inherent contradiction in his definition between more or less distinctive and genetically distinct. Elsewhere it is apparent that he prefers to emphasize distinct, but the presence of greater variation is explained to his satisfaction by aggregation. It is a 19th-century biological explanation that Rushton seeks to revive, citing Francis Galton as a founder (pp. 9 13) and characterizing Franz Boas and Margaret Mead as powerful ideologues who fought against the idea of biological universals (p. 13). Ashley Montagu (1941) challenged the 19th-century view of race partly on the basis of the Mendelian principle that traits are not transmitted as complexes of characters, and confirming data were developed in the decades that followed. Frank B. Livingstone (1958, 1962), using Julian Huxley s (1938) cline concept, presented data on the gradual change in frequency of sickle-cell genes over a wide geographic area of Africa, the Mediterranean, and South Asia. Clines provided a concrete alternative to thinking in terms of races. Identifiable traits were not confined to one race and were not uniform in frequency within a geographic area. C. Loring Brace (1964) made a persuasive case for studying human clinal variation one trait at a time. 2 The new views were 2. In biology, Edward O. Wilson and William Brown (1953) had already presented the case against the trinomen (subspecies) for very similar reasons but based on studies of frogs, which migrate and interbreed far less than humans. Also in biology, Paul Ehrlich and Richard Holm (1964), making a strong case for examining several clines at a time, revealed that racial traits did not covary in their geographic distribution. The geneticist Richard Lewontin

I. What is Evolution? Agents of Evolutionary Change The Five Forces of Evolution and How We Measure Them A. First, remember that Evolution is a two-stage process: 1. Production and redistribution of variation

Okami Study Guide: Chapter 3 1 Chapter in Review 1. Heredity is the tendency of offspring to resemble their parents in various ways. Genes are units of heredity. They are functional strands of DNA grouped

Culture (from the Encarta Encyclopedia) 1. Introduction Culture, in anthropology, is the patterns of behavior and thinking that people living in social groups learn, create, and share. Culture distinguishes

Basic Concepts in Research and Data Analysis Introduction: A Common Language for Researchers...2 Steps to Follow When Conducting Research...3 The Research Question... 3 The Hypothesis... 4 Defining the

SYG 2000 Course Introduction to Sociology Learning Objectives In General, always be able to present a review of the key insights from any classroom video or activity connected to each chapter. Also, know

Biology 1406 - Notes for exam 5 - Population genetics Ch 13, 14, 15 Species - group of individuals that are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring; genetically similar 13.7, 14.2 Population

Cellphones: Safe or Carcinogenic? With an estimated five billion worldwide users, the public debate over cellphone and the possible link to cancer is one of critical importance. The concern is that cellphones

11.1 KEY CONCEPT A population shares a common gene pool. Why it s beneficial: Genetic variation leads to phenotypic variation. It increases the chance that some individuals will survive Phenotypic variation

Chapter 2 Why is Psychological Testing Important? Why is important? We use tests to make different types of important decisions E.g., What grade to assign a student Whether to hire a job candidate If /

Gene Flow Up to now, we have dealt with local populations in which all individuals can be viewed as sharing a common system of mating. But in many species, the species is broken up into many local populations

World History Modern Times Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunters. ~African Proverb History is a kind of introduction to more interesting people than we can

Focus on the Body: Psychobiology 1 A. Definition Biological psychology is the application of the principles of biology to the study of mental processes and behavior. The goal of the work is to understand

Oxford Scholarship Online You are looking at 1-10 of 11 items for: keywords : Manilius hiswmo Asia and the Great War: A Shared History Item type: book acprof:oso/9780199658190.001.0001 This book presents

The Race Concept Part II Francis Galton (1822-1911) 1869 Hereditary Genius Much taken by his cousin s work on natural selection Worshipped at the alter of quantification A man s natural abilities are derived

CHAPTER 4: PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION CHAPTER OVERVIEW Chapter 4 introduces you to the related concepts of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. The chapter begins with definitions of these three

SOCIAL STUDIES MODERN WORLD HISTORY GRADE 9 Curriculum Map and Standards 2015-2016 Aligned with Ohio s Learning Standards for Social Studies and the Common Core State Standards for Literacy in History/Social

From the SelectedWorks of Gary E. Silvers Ph.D. 2014 The Advancement: A Book Review Gary E. Silvers, Ph.D. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/dr_gary_silvers/2/ The Advancement: Keeping the Faith in

Name: Roksana Korbi AP Biology Chapter 21 Active Reading Guide The Evolution of Populations This chapter begins with the idea that we focused on as we closed Chapter 19: Individuals do not evolve! Populations

The Next Generation Science Standards and the Life Sciences The important features of life science standards for elementary, middle, and high school levels Rodger W. Bybee Publication of the Next Generation

1.1 The student is able to convert a data set from a table of numbers that reflect a change in the genetic makeup of a population over time and to apply mathematical methods and conceptual understandings

World Population Day, 11 July 215 34/215 STATISTICAL REFLECTIONS 16 July 215 Contents The world s population...1 Past features of population growth...1 Fertility...2 Mortality, life expectancy...2 International

Getting the Most from Demographics: Things to Consider for Powerful Market Analysis Charles J. Schwartz Principal, Intelligent Analytical Services Demographic analysis has become a fact of life in market

Evolution of Populations Evolution Q: How can populations evolve to form new species? 17.1 How do genes make evolution possible? WHAT I KNOW SAMPLE ANSWER: There are different variations of the same gene.

Grade Stand Sub-Strand Standard Benchmark OF OF OF A. Scientific World View B. Scientific Inquiry C. Scientific Enterprise understand that science is a way of knowing about the world that is characterized

FORENSIC SCIENCE COURSE DESCRIPTION This course is an overview of how science is applied to solving crimes. Topics include history of forensic sciences, collecting of evidence, analyzing results and hands-on

CPO Science and the NGSS It is no coincidence that the performance expectations in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are all action-based. The NGSS champion the idea that science content cannot

1 Evolutionary Theory Has Arrived in the Human Behavioral Sciences But Not The Structure of Higher Education David Sloan Wilson Distinguished Professor, Departments of Biology and Anthropology Director

Biological kinds and the causal theory of reference Ingo Brigandt Department of History and Philosophy of Science 1017 Cathedral of Learning University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 15260 E-mail: inb1@pitt.edu

Perspectives on Computer Intelligence Can computers think? In attempt to make sense of this question Alan Turing, John Searle and Daniel Dennett put fourth varying arguments in the discussion surrounding

THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES SOCIOLOGY PROGRAM HANDBOOK MAY 2015 Sociology The program requires a minimum of 120 semester hours for a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Sociology. This includes

Chapter 12 Behavioural Genetics: The Study of Differences Martin Lalumière Alarge part of psychological science is concerned with identifying, cataloguing, and explaining individual differences. One does

Microevolution: The mechanism of evolution What is it that evolves? Not individual organisms Populations are the smallest units that evolve Population: members of a species (interbreeding individuals and

The Story of Human Evolution Part 1: From ape-like ancestors to modern humans Slide 1 The Story of Human Evolution This powerpoint presentation tells the story of who we are and where we came from - how

The Teen Brain: Still Under ConStrUCtion NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH One of the ways that scientists have searched for the causes of mental illness is by studying the development of the brain from

Ch. 13 How Populations Evolve Name Period California State Standards covered by this chapter: Evolution 7. The frequency of an allele in a gene pool of a population depends on many factors and may be stable

SOCIAL STUDIES MODERN WORLD HISTORY GRADE 9 I Can Checklist 2015-2016 Aligned with Ohio s Learning Standards for Social Studies Office of Teaching and Learning Curriculum Division 1 2 I can analyze a historical

Evolution Part 1 Unit 10 Miss Wheeler Evolution Evolution- The process by which organisms have changed (and will continue changing) over time Charles Darwin- Father of Evolution Traveled for 5 years on

Chapter 10 Intelligence Operational Definition Intelligence individuals abilities to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms

Certification Examinations for Oklahoma Educators (CEOE) Framework Development Correlation Table The Framework Development Correlation Table provides information about possible alignment of some of the

Q1: Human origins expert Chris Stringer says that there are still questions about the early part of the human family tree. What is the important question he is asking? Hint: Audio/slideshow: Our family

INDEX OF TEMPLATES INTRODUCING WHAT THEY SAY A number of sociologists have recently suggested that X s work has several fundamental problems. It has become common today to dismiss X s contribution to the

DEFINITIONS AND KEY CONCEPTS Race: A social construct that artificially divides people into distinct groups based on characteristics, such as physical appearance (particularly color), ancestral heritage,

A PROJECT OF THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER.ORG Common Beliefs COMMON BELIEF 1 I don t think of my students in terms of their race or ethnicity. I am color blind when it comes to my teaching. When teachers

CH. 15: Darwin s Theory of Evolution Directions: READ ch. 15 in your textbook and use the note outline to help you answer the questions below. 1. What is a theory? 2. Describe some of the ideas that influenced

Age of Exploration and the Slave Trade Mr. Cegielski Essential Questions: 1) What were the political, economic, and religious causes of European exploration? 2) What were the major sea routes and exploits

CHAPTER 11: The Problem of Global Inequality MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. The claim that poverty is unethical is essentially a. Normative c. political b. theoretical d. scientific 2. Self-interest is an important

Forensic Science High School Elective Course Description Forensic Science is a one semester high school level course that satisfies a CUSD200 graduation requirement in the area of science. Successful completion

Focus Question What is social Darwinism? 1-2: Sociology: Then and Now Sociology Essential Questions How did the field of sociology develop? In what ways do the three main theoretical perspectives in sociology

Name Date Use the TIMELINE OF LIFE ON EARTH in the Islands of Evolution exhibit to learn about the history of life on Earth. Then, continue to the Earthquake exhibit to answer questions on the geologic

COSTS OF HEALTH CARE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD R.E. Center for Health Care and Insurance Studies, Department of Finance, University of Connecticut, USA Keywords: health care costs, supply and demand of health

Chapter 5: Analysis of The National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS:88) Introduction The National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS:88) followed students from 8 th grade in 1988 to 10 th grade in